01 Mar 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou mean investment? Well Japan has been investing heavily overseas for yonks and continues to do so. I don't buy it, Fab. I have never heard of space exploration being cited as expansionism before. And China invaded Tibet 60 years ago.
Their interest in Africa.
01 Mar 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasSeeing as history is strewn with expanisonistic nations attacking each other, invading, occupying, and exploiting each other for economic reasons - the conventional meaning of expansionism - I would go as far as to say that overseas investment, in geopolitical terms - of the type China is now engaging in - is the opposite of "expansionism".
The difference between Japan and China is that China is expansionistic, Japan is not.
Expansionism is/was stuff like Japan's East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. That happened 80 or so years ago. China's invasion of Tibet was 60 years ago. Neither nation has been expansionistic since.
01 Mar 10
Originally posted by FMFChina is literary buying up natural resources, buying politicians, making friends all over Africa. So are other nations, but not so organized as China's doing. I think China is on the go in Africa.
You mean investment? Well Japan has been investing heavily overseas for yonks and continues to do so. I don't buy it, Fab. I have never heard of space exploration being cited as expansionism before. And China invaded Tibet 60 years ago.
Wasn't NASA a mean of expand out to space? If China is serious about their manned space exploration, they will be the first with a manned lunar station. The moon will be theirs. Their secrecy makes us not know what they're up to, but they certainly is up - there - in the close future.
China is still in Tibet. They chinesify Tibet as a long term project. They haven't yet forgotten the breakout of Taiwan as they still see as theirs. What will be the next target? Mongolia?
You don't have to buy it, F. It's only my opinion, it's only my prophecy. Let's have a chat fifty years from now, and we'll see who is right. I really hope I am wrong.
01 Mar 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes. I know. But it is surely a non-expansionistic means of gathering resources and influence, in the service of fuelling/absorbing its growth? China is indeed on the go in Africa - and elsewhere - and, thankfully, this economic flexing is not of the expansionistic kind.
China is literary buying up natural resources, buying politicians, making friends all over Africa. So are other nations, but not so organized as China's doing. I think China is on the go in Africa.
01 Mar 10
Originally posted by FMFPerhaps we have different definition of the word 'expansionistic'.
Yes. I know. But it is surely a [b]non-expansionistic means of gathering resources and influence, in the service of fuelling/absorbing its growth? China is indeed on the go in Africa - and elsewhere - and, thankfully, this economic flexing is not of the expansionistic kind.[/b]
I think 'expansionistic' means that a country is trying to dominate over more and more nations, territory, and people in the world. Countries is in heavy debts to China, meaning that they control these countries. If they want. And (in my opinion) China want.
Militarily China wants Taiwan back, they want to keep Tibet, and god only knows about Mongolia. But they don't want to go into Korea, Vietnam or other places. They don't want to have other countries (if not given) inside their territory (apart from Taiwan, Tibet and perhaps Mongolia). So they are expansionalistic in a peaceful way.
It's all about control.
01 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes we do. Mine is the commonly held English language meaning of the word when analyzing the behaviour of nations. Perhaps there is some ambiguity with the corresponding word in your own mother tongue and this is affecting your use of the word here. I know that in Indonesian the words for growth, develop and expand lead to misunderstanding. Luckily there is no such problem in English. You can say China is expanding its economic ties around the world. But "expansionism" is soemthing else altogether.
Perhaps we have different definition of the word 'expansionistic'.
01 Mar 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasIf they do so by invading those nations and increasing their territory in that way, then it is expansionism. If they boost their influence and control by investing and strengthening economic links then it means they are taking the non-expansionistic road.
I think 'expansionistic' means that a country is trying to dominate over more and more nations, territory, and people in the world.
01 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFTherefore I made it clearer what I meant by 'expansionistic'.
If they do so by invading those nations and increasing their territory in that way, then it is expansionism. If they boost their influence and control by investing and strengthening economic links then it means they are taking the non-expansionistic road.
This means that they are NOT expansionistic.
I don't think this has to do with my mothertongue. Perhaps more of an alternate definition, nothing else.
This not an important issue for me. Skip the expansionistic part. The other part is far mor interesting. It's only an opinion. Nothing more.